"Arius was recognised as a Saint and Martyr by the Arian Catholic Church on 16th June 2006"

Saint? No; martyr for what he believed? Probably.

« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 12:59:08 AM by NicholasMyra »

Logged

Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Eh, doesn't surprise me. What's next? The Pope officially declares Islam to be Catholic and cuts the Mass down to half an hour?

Islam isn't Catholic?

Well, it is found basically everywhere in the world, so by the RCC's own definition I do have to wonder...

But as to the OP, I am with theistgal on this one: We can find crazy tiny groups claiming to be Orthodox all over the internet, so I'm a bit confused as to why anyone would believe that this particular group has anything to do with the official/recognized Roman Catholic Church. Clearly they're a bunch of wing nuts.

Perhaps this website is framing this book by former Archbishop Rowan Williams to fit its agenda but I do not think so. If Mr. willliams is in sympathy with Arianism then this is most disconcerting:

Further ReadingArius: Heresy and Tradition (Paperback) by Rowan Williams (Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury)

SynopsisArianism has been called the “archetypal Christian heresy”: it denies the divinity of Christ. This study of Arius by Rowan Williams, made available again and augmented with a new introduction and a fresh conclusion, provides the most detailed examination of Arianism ever published.In exploring the background and mind of Arius, Williams argues that this classic “heretic” (according to trinitarians and Niceans) was in fact a dedicated theological conservative whose concern was to defend the free and personal character of the Christian God. According to Williams, Arius’s heresy grew out of his attempt to unite traditional biblical language with radical philosophical ideas and techniques and involved, from the start, issues of authority in the church. Thus, the crisis of the early fourth century was not only about the doctrine of God but also about the relations between emperors, bishops, and ascetical “charismatic” teachers in the church’s decision-making. Williams raises the vital wider questions of how heresy is defined and how certain kinds of traditionalism transform themselves into heresy.Arius is widely considered to be Williams’s magnum opus. Long out of print and never before available in paperback, the reissue of this extremely important book -- in a form and at a price which will be attractive to non-specialists as well as to scholars -- is a major publishing event.

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

When I first came across this site a couple of years ago, they used to have icons up with the ΜΡ ΘΥ and Ο ΩΝ inscriptions on them, both of which proclaim Christ as God. They also had an icon of 'St. Arius' which was actually an icon of St. Spyridon, holding the brick with which he miraculously demonstrated the doctrine of the Trinity - someone, with no knowledge of Greek, had obviously just typed 'Arius icon' into Google Images. After bringing it to their attention, they have taken down the icon of St. Spyridon, and changed the inscriptions on the icons to read ΜΡ ΧΡ and Χ ΑΩ. In short, this guy (I have a feeling this is a one-member church) doesn't have a clue.

I found that site too, it just sounds like another Da Vinci Code conspiracy fan who happened to find a guy in Church history to back him up.

As far as fake Catholic churches go, there is also a "Liberal Catholic Church" which is basically a new-age cult using the Latin Mass. Not everything out there that says "Catholic" is part of the Roman Catholic Church, even if some people claiming to be Roman Catholics would fit better in that one

Logged

Quote from: Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica

Only one person who is prayerfully connected to God is needed, and we will have peace everywhere -- in the family, at work, in the government, and everywhere.

I found that site too, it just sounds like another Da Vinci Code conspiracy fan who happened to find a guy in Church history to back him up.

As far as fake Catholic churches go, there is also a "Liberal Catholic Church" which is basically a new-age cult using the Latin Mass. Not everything out there that says "Catholic" is part of the Roman Catholic Church, even if some people claiming to be Roman Catholics would fit better in that one

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I must say though, the private interpretation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception has brought many to believe that Jesus is either not fully man or fully God. Not that the RC Church teaches this, I've read the dogmatic declaration and I can't figure out where these people have come to that assumption (no pun intended) on the humanity of Christ based on the Immaculate Conception.

I think I can field this one. The IC teaches that the Theotokos was preserved from 'original sin' which affected the rest of humanity. So we wonder: If the Theotokos was born without original sin (and hence Christ would be born free of its effects), then what does it mean to say, as we do, that Christ took flesh from her? It seems to say that it must've been something different than the rest of us, as the rest of us suffer the mortality which is the effect of the fall.

I think I can field this one. The IC teaches that the Theotokos was preserved from 'original sin' which affected the rest of humanity. So we wonder: If the Theotokos was born without original sin (and hence Christ would be born free of its effects), then what does it mean to say, as we do, that Christ took flesh from her? It seems to say that it must've been something different than the rest of us, as the rest of us suffer the mortality which is the effect of the fall.

Yes. They seem to imply that Christ was somewhat superhuman, bearing a humanity other than ours. In fact this is somewhat Arian because they can't seem to grasp the concept that Christ is sinless not because of a different humanity, but by the perfect communion of his human nature with his divine nature. They seem to imply that Christ's perfection is achieve by a perfect humanity without regard for His divinity.

In fact this is somewhat Arian because they can't seem to grasp the concept that Christ is sinless not because of a different humanity, but by the perfect communion of his human nature with his divine nature.

It is the sinless humanity of the Virgin - not hypostatically united to the Godhead - that is called into question. It is a humanity other than the one we share. If that is the humanity from which Christ assumed His own, this is a problem.

In fact this is somewhat Arian because they can't seem to grasp the concept that Christ is sinless not because of a different humanity, but by the perfect communion of his human nature with his divine nature.

It is the sinless humanity of the Virgin - not hypostatically united to the Godhead - that is called into question. It is a humanity other than the one we share. If that is the humanity from which Christ assumed His own, this is a problem.

Well, it feeds into that. If Mary being free from Original Sin means she is of a human nature other than our own, then Christ takes that altered humanity. There there is nothing really that Christ shares with the rest of us.

I guess this also feeds into the whole theology of the West, that we are saved by antonement of our sins. It doesn't matter if Christ's human nature is different from ours, this human nature is only needed so he can offer that perfect sacrifice to the Father to pay the debt of sin incurred by Adam. Theosis is completely disregarded in this equation. In fact, the West is only recently starting to rediscover Theosis. Pope John Paul II has taught it extensively as part of Theology of the Body.

Well, it feeds into that. If Mary being free from Original Sin means she is of a human nature other than our own, then Christ takes that altered humanity. There there is nothing really that Christ shares with the rest of us.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you said the critics of IC were somewhat Arian.

Well, it feeds into that. If Mary being free from Original Sin means she is of a human nature other than our own, then Christ takes that altered humanity. There there is nothing really that Christ shares with the rest of us.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you said the critics of IC were somewhat Arian.

No, I mean some RCs who don't even care to learn what they really should be believing. They read a line or two, talk to someone on the internet, suddenly what they believe is the dogma.